the curious cat

Menu

Tag Archives: Bill O’Reilly

I love polling data, but I only fully trust data when multiple sources agree. I dislike both people who dismiss data because it disagrees with their views and people who rely on only data that agrees with them. Here is an example of someone doing both. Bill O’Reilly cites research unquestioningly when it makes him personally look good, but then dismisses out of hand a scientific study because he didn’t like its conclusions.

As for the data O’Reilly righteously dismissed, I still don’t understand his claim of subjectivity. O’Reilly doesn’t cite other scientific research that comes to different conclusions. He simply cites an opinion piece. Anyway, I immediately remembered having written about this study and having put it in context of other data: Tea Party: prejudiced against marginalized groups?. If you’d like to decide for yourself, here is the article I think O’Reilly is referring to along with a response by another commenter, a response by the researcher, an interview with the researcher, and a response to the responses by the first author.

As for the data O’Reilly happily cited, what I found interesting is that it doesn’t fit in with what is known from other sources. I haven’t looked at this data close enough to have a conclusive opinion, but I must admit O’Reilly’s smugness (combined with his occasional anti-intellectual attitude) irritates me to no end. I have a knee-jerk suspicion of anything that comes out of O’Reilly’s mouth. Here is some commentary about the poll from the first video.

If there was a poll that made you wonder who was doing the polling — or what kind of sample was being surveyed — this one might be it.

It begins fairly enough: more Americans get their political news from Fox News than any other source. This seems consistent with reality: Fox News has a larger audience than any other cable news channel, and a larger share of voice than any American newspaper (though it’s still lapped by network news broadcasts).

According to the poll — conducted by Politico and George Washington University — 42 percent of those watching cable news consider Fox their “main source,” with 30 percent said to be reliant on CNN and just 12 percent watching MSNBC.

This doesn’t, however, seem to jibe with ratings reports. According to cable news TV ratings released last week, Fox News beat MSNBC in the key 25 to 54 demographic with a rating of 333 to 127. CNN came in with last place ratings, at 118 for the main CNN network and 119 for CNN’s Headline News. That would put MSNBC ahead of CNN in the ratings race.

In primetime, Fox beats MSNBC by about two times: 574 to MSNBC’s 251. If the “main source” of news is primetime television, then MSNBC should have done considerably better in the Politico poll than just 12 percent.

[…] The Politico piece remarks wryly, “The results of the poll… also reflect a trend that many commentators and media analysts find disconcerting: Voters are turning to media sources that reinforce their political worldviews rather than present them with more objective reporting that might challenge their assumptions.”

“As more people get news from cable channels and websites that offer a particular point of view 24/7, it becomes increasingly important for viewers to sample multiple sources in order to best understand the issues and proposed solutions,” the piece quotes a George Washington University professor as saying. “This trend is only increasing.”

Last week a Gallup poll showed Democrats evenly split with Republicans among voters on a Congressional ballot. When I diaried about it, many readers argued that it was an outlier. Since then other polls have shown the same trend. The new Associated Press poll put the generic dead even among registered voters 47 percent Democratic, 47 percent Republican — and the New York Times/CBS News survey released yesterday gave Republicans a narrow 40 percent to 38 percent edge.

Along comes another poll today by POLITICO/George Washington University showing the same results in the battle ground states, where Democrats are running even with the big, bad Republicans. It points to great news for Democrats in several key regions with numerous House and Senate seats in play. In the Midwest and Northeast they hold a 5-point advantage.

Voters, by a 9-point margin, believe Republicans will pick up both the House and the Senate, even though they are evenly divided over whom they intend to back in six weeks, according to a new POLITICO/George Washington University Battleground Poll.

In a generic matchup between the two parties, those surveyed were split 43-43 when asked if they would back a Republican or a Democrat on Election Day. This is good news for Democrats and at odds with many other public polls, which have shown Republicans holding a single-digit edge.

I continue to question the motives behind this media soap opera. Why is the media burying great news for Democrats? Does the media believe they have the power to create political momentum and sweep people into power by simply creating polls to suit their agenda and looping it ad nauseum until voters cave in and accept a media created reality?

– – –

Even if Fox News had managed to brainwash most Americans into believing their propaganda/spin, I would take that as a rather negative accomplishment. Large corporations like News Corp, which owns Fox News, have been buying up media at a fast rate. Today, most of the media is owned by a handful of companies, but it wasn’t always that way. Before the Fairness Doctrine was repealed, there used to be more diversity of media, more small business owners of media, and more local control of media.

There are many potential explanations for why this gap exists. The two most frequently cited reasons are the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine in 1987 and simple consumer demand. As this report will detail, neither of these reasons adequately explains why conservative talk radio dominates the airwaves.

Our conclusion is that the gap between conservative and progressive talk radio is the result of multiple structural problems in the U.S. regulatory system, particularly the complete breakdown of the public trustee concept of broadcast, the elimination of clear public interest requirements for broadcasting, and the relaxation of ownership rules including the requirement of local participation in management.

Ownership diversity is perhaps the single most important variable contributing to the structural imbalance based on the data. Quantitative analysis conducted by Free Press of all 10,506 licensed commercial radio stations reveals that stations owned by women, minorities, or local owners are statistically less likely to air conservative hosts or shows.

In contrast, stations controlled by group owners—those with stations in multiple markets or more than three stations in a single market—were statistically more likely to air conservative talk. Furthermore, markets that aired both conservative and progressive programming were statistically less concentrated than the markets that aired only one type of programming and were more likely to be the markets that had female- and minority-owned stations.

– – –

One thing that connects all of this is the fact that there is a connection between Fox News and the Tea Party. Fox News pundits like O’Reilly almost always go to the defense to the Tea Party. I saw in one of the articles I was perusing a mention of a poll that showed the strongest common denominator, stronger than any particular value or policy position, among Tea Party supporters was that they tended to be viewers of Glenn Beck’s show. I couldn’t find that article again, but here is some other info to show this close relationship.

At the same time, 7 percent of conservative Sean Hannity’s Fox News Channel viewers and 9 percent of Rush Limbaugh’s listeners say Obama is doing a good job, the survey said. Three quarters of Limbaugh, Hannity and Glenn Beck’s audiences identify themselves as tea party supporters.

“[A]t least twenty Fox News personalities have endorsed, raised money, or campaigned for Republican candidates or causes, or against Democratic candidates or causes, in more than 300 instances and in all 50 states,” according to a Media Matters survey conducted in April. Meanwhile, a recent Pew research survey finds that Fox News’ viewership has increased in recent years due almost entirely to an influx of Republicans, 40 percent of whom now say they regularly get their news there. That’s up from just 25 percent in 2002. Of course, Fox’s parent company also recently gave $1 million to the Republican Governors Association.

– – –

One interesting fact about Fox News is that their audience is the oldest of any cable channel. In order to put this in context, the average age of cable viewers is already up there around retirmenent age.

It took some googling but I found a reliable source that confirms that during the 2007-2008 television season, the most recent season for which figures are available, the average age of Fox News viewers was 65:

According to a study released by Magna Global’s Steve Sternberg, the five broadcast nets’ average live median age (in other words, not including delayed DVR viewing) was 50 last season. That’s the oldest ever since Sternberg started analyzing median age more than a decade ago — and the first time the nets’ median age was outside of the vaunted 18-49 demo…

Among ad-supported cable nets, the news nets (along with older-skewing Hallmark Channel, Golf Channel and GSN’s daytime sked) sport the most gray, with Fox News Channel’s daytime and primetime skeds the absolute oldest, clocking in with a median age above 65. (Emphasis added.)

As usual, I don’t precisely know what all this means. But let me point out a few thoughts.

The age factor relates to both the issue of popularity and racial prejudice. Fox News has the most popular cable channel and cable channels are more popular than the networks, but this is meaningless when considered in isolation. The Fox News audience, despite it’s relative size, is a tiny fraction of a percentage of the total population. The fact is most of the population doesn’t watch any of the mainstream media for news. In particular, the younger generations get most of their news from the internet and the New Media (a category rarely measured in most polls). So, O’Reilly’s smugness about being a trusted news source among very old people isn’t saying much. Furthermore, the Tea Party and Fox News both share this older audience which is relatively more racially prejudiced than younger generations.

Here is what interests me. This audience of the mainstream media mostly consists of the Boomer generation. They were the largest generation ever to be born… that is until the Millennial generation was born. Boomers have always been known for being loud and for getting their way. They’ve dominated politics for most of their lives and now as they enter retirement they want to continue to maintain their influence. The Old Media profited greatly from this generation and this demographic remains their loyal base.

What many people don’t see coming or would rather ignore is that all of this is going to change in the coming years and decades. Obama didn’t win because of the older white audience of Fox News and the rest of the MSM. It was the multicultural Millennial generation that made it’s debut by voting Obama into office. If you want to know what young, white, and low-income voters (i.e., the opposite of the Tea Party), ignore what you hear at Tea Parties and on Fox News and instead check out the data: Public Opinion On Government & Tea Party.

The last piece is the element of race. Older people are both more white and more racially prejudiced than younger people. White kids in school right now are already the minority among their peers. The younger generations have grown up with multiculturalism and interracial dating/marriage, with multi-racial friends and with those who are openly homosexual. Research shows that when kids grow up with diversity that they end up having more accepting attitudes of those who are different. Or, in other words, they grow up to be socially liberal. Millennials are a larger generation than even the Boomers. Conservative outrage (whether expressed by Tea Party protesters or right-wing pundits) won’t be able to stop this massive change on the horizon.

I have a hard time feeling outraged at or even caring about all the stupidity in politics in the media. The Sherrod incident is so predictable that it’s boring (and I’m as critical of the right-wing media as I am of the Obama administration). Still, there is one interesting thing to note. That interesting thing is Shep Smith. My respect for Shep Smith keeps growing and the video below shows why. As comparison, I’ll also post a video about Bill O’Reilly. Both videos are from The Young Turks and both involve the Sherrod incident.

Obviously, O’Reilly isn’t a journalist and admits he isn’t, but my respect for Shep Smith isn’t simply that he is a journalist. Cenk Uygur, who is the host commenting in these two videos, is also a commentator like O’Reilly. Even so, I have respect for Cenk Uygur for the same reason I have respect for Shep Smith. Neither Uygur nor Smith limits their criticism to ideological partisanship.

The comparison between Shep Smith and Bill O’Reilly is even stronger for the fact that O’Reilly might be the best commentator on Fox News. O’Reilly can, on rare occasions, surprise me in saying something honest and even principled. Compared to Beck, O’Reilly is an exemplar of moderation and sanity. But, compared to Shep Smith, it becomes clear how extremely partisan O’Reilly is.

In the first video, Bill Moyers demonstrates classy, thoughtful journalism.
In the second video, Bill O’Reilly’s henchman demonstrates classless, faux journalism.
I decided to throw in a third video which is Cenk Uygur ripping apart Bill O’Reilly’s blatant dishonesty.

I heard Michael Moore interviewed on NPR the other day. It was the best interview of him that I’ve come across. He spoke about his personal life which gave the background for what motivates him. He was raised in a politically active family, but fairly conservative. His grandfather was a Republican politician who taught him the values of conservatism such as conserving the environment. He grew up Catholic and still goes to church. He has been married to the same woman for something like 3 decades. He tries to be a good person and live by the principles that Jesus taught. Moore is one of those social justice Christians that Beck thinks are the worse of the worse.

I bring up Beck for a reason. Beck often uses violence as a theme in his show. One particular example was when he was talking about killing Michael Moore and he wondered if he should kill Moore himself or hire someone. I think that is an extreme statement to make on mainstream tv. Conservatives don’t seem offended by such hate-filled language, but if a liberal said something like that conservatives would go batshit crazy. Moore has never made a statement like that. Moore even said he wouldn’t even say he hated Bush even though he strongly disagreed with him. From Moore’s Christian perspective, hatred and violence aren’t Christian values. Also, he believes religion is a personal matter and shouldn’t be used as a talking point or a wedge issue. Moore chooses to live his values rather than righteously preach down at others.

Moore is considered by rightwingers as the most loony of the leftwingers. So, if Moore is the worst kind of liberal, that is a compliment to liberalism. Compared to the worst kind of conservative, Moore comes off as a moderate. Even if you disagree with Moore’s claims or arguments, at least he doesn’t threaten violence and spout hate speech.

This distinction isn’t limited to Moore and Beck.

There was an interview Buckley did with Chomsky. Buckley threatened to punch Chomsky in the face and it wasn’t the first guest he had threatened in this manner. It’s a rather odd response to have in a televised interview especially with someone like Chomsky who is as cool-headed of an intellectual as you can find. Chomsky is very easygoing and quite understanding of those different from himself. Chomsky even defended Tea Party protesters saying that they shouldn’t be criticized by liberals but instead that liberals should try to understand their perspective. Understand the perspective of someone you disagree with? Why does it take a liberal to point out that sympathetic understanding is better than righteous hatred?

Let me provide two other examples.

Compare Bill O’Reilly and Jon Stewart. Stewart is fairly easygoing although not the intellectual that Chomsky is. Like Chomsky, Stewart doesn’t come off as mean-spirited and always gives people the opportunity to speak and he actually listens to others. O’Reilly, on the other hand, often yells at people, tells them to shut up and talks over them. O’Reilly isn’t always that way, but my point is that he acts that way quite often and Stewart never acts that way. I truly doubt that Stewart has ever told a guest to shut up.

And compare Ann Coulter and Bill Maher. Maher also lets anyone to state their opinion. He has strong opinions, but he doesn’t bludgeon people with them. He for some strange reason even considers Coulter a friend of sorts and has had her on his show. Coulter is very different. She is the most rude and bigoted person I’ve ever seen on mainstream tv. She either intentionally makes offensive statements or she is almost entirely oblivious, but she doesn’t seem stupid enough to be that oblivious.

Obviously, this isn’t limited to the behavior of people on tv. I’ve discussed this topic before and I mentioned the differences between conservative and liberal activists. A clear example are the two sides on the abortion issue. Pro-life activists have committed decades of a wide variety of violence, but I never hear of violence by pro-choice activists. I’m not saying that all conservatives are violent. What I am saying is that the conservative mindset seems to make one more prone to violence. As a contrasting example, I like to bring up the Weather Underground which is considered the most violent liberal activist group in US history. The difference is that the Weather Underground never killed anyone nor tried to kill anyone. In fact, they went out of their way to avoid killing anyone.

Another example is that of guns. Conservatives bring guns to rallies and protests. Liberals don’t. If asked, many liberals support the right to own guns or even carry guns. But, for whatever reason, the threat of violence bothers liberals more… maybe because the violence is typically turned towards liberals. And yet it’s conservatives who feel the most defensive when violence is used against the country.

There are many explanations for why this difference exists. I tend to favor psychological explanations based on personality research, but there are cultural reasons that could be considered as well. Anyways, the reason for this difference isn’t my concern in this post. I was partly just noting the difference as I just heard the interview with Michael Moore. But what ultimately concerns me or rather what makes me wonder is: Why do liberals notice this difference but conservatives don’t? When I’ve seen this brought up with conservatives they tend to explain it away. If a liberal used violence, even liberals would condemn it. But when conservatives use violence, conservatives often will defend it or try to find some kind of rationalized justification. For example, Palin said a conservative who killed some liberals wasn’t a terrorist even though the killing was politically motivated. Even a conservative politician can defend violence and not be held accountable.

As a liberal, I fear violence by American conservatives more than I fear violence by Islamic extremists. And my fear is reasonable. A large percentage of recent acts of violence have been committed by conservatives and often directed at liberals. It’s a fact of life in the US that conservatives are prone to violence. Maybe it’s a fact of life in all countries.

Cable news rabble-rousers like Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly love to rouse their rabble by lamenting the loss of the America they grew up in, an idyllic and simpler bygone era. So, on last night’s Daily Show, John Oliver went looking for these so-called good old days, and it wasn’t so easy. But maybe he just didn’t go back far enough. From what I understand, there was a pretty nice period of time that ended about 250,000 years ago.

This, of course, refers to the famous remarks (almost four days old now) in which Richard Dawkins’ suggestion that there be a separation of church and state in public schools was shouted down by O’Reilly’s claim that he was imposing fascism.

Poor Winston Smith. When Orwell wrote his novel there was only a three minute hate. Now FOXNews runs 24 hours a day.
Watch the full “interview” here.

I have e-mail notification for O’Reilly and Beck. I don’t usually pay much attention to what they say, but I like to check out what their opinionating sometimes.

Here is O’Reilly’s most recent article which was posted on his website just today. O’Reilly doesn’t like atheists. No big surprise there. The only reason I’ve posted this is simply to share an example of how religiosity (or rather conservative religiosity) is often paired with a lack of knowledge about one’s religion.

Once again we are in the Christmas season, and the coal-in-your-stocking crowd is back at it. This year the American Humanist Association is putting up bus ads in selected cities that say, “No god? No problem! Be good for goodness sake.” The picture accompanying the text shows a group of young people wearing Santa hats. Ho, ho, ho.

A second front was launched by the virulently anti-God group “Freedom from Religion.” It is celebrating Christmas in Las Vegas with ads that say, “Yes, Virginia, there is no God.”

The reason, I believe, is that the atheists are jealous of the Yuletide season.

I truly doubt he honestly believes that. Why make such inanely disingenuous statements?

While Christians have Jesus and Jews have the prophets, non-believers have Bill Maher.

Nope. Non-believers have a long history of great thinkers who questioned conventional religious beliefs, and in it’s place sought a higher or more genuine goodness. Some of the most brilliant minds of philosophy and even religion (such as many mystics) denied all limited notions of divinity and truth. The history of atheism and skepticism goes back to the very beginning of Western thought.

There are no atheist Christmas carols, no pagan displays of largesse like Santa Claus.

I’m not sure about carols, but I have no doubt that there are plenty of songs out there written about atheism. Just go to Youtube and I’m sure you’ll find more atheist songs and parody carols to entertain you through the entire holiday season. Someone could be a pagan all the while being atheistic or agnostic about the fundamentalist Christian God or the Monotheist God in general. Many pagans are spiritual without declaring any specific theist beliefs. Anyways, how does the pagan origins of Christmas support the goodness of the Christian tradition?

In fact, for the non-believer, Christmas is just a day off, a time to consider that Mardi Gras is less than two months away.

Many people are just culturally Christian. They don’t necessarily believe nor do they necessarily dis-believe. They just enjoy Christmas either because it’s fun or they have good memories of it or they like to visit with friends and family. The tradition of Christmas has been secularized largely anyways, and Christians don’t have sole ownership of Christmas as it originally was a pagan holiday.

But there is a serious side to this, and the American “humanists” should listen up. Christmas is a joyous time for children; that’s the big upside of celebrating the birth of Jesus.

Actually, I’m willing to bet that if you asked children the reason Christmas is a joyous time is because of the presents… and the general festivity of it all.

Why, then, do people who want to “be good” spend money denigrating a beautiful day?

Why do righteous Fundies want to denigrate the entirety of the religion of Christianity with their bigoted and hateful beliefs every day of the year?

Could it be that the humanists are not really interested in good at all? Maybe.

Could it be that the righteous Fundies are not really interested in good at all? Maybe… or at least no one’s good but their own.

The head humanist guy, Roy Speckhardt, says the anti-God signs are worthy because they send a message that atheists shouldn’t be vilified as immoral. Well, old Roy needs to wise up. The signs actually create resentment and hostility toward atheists. Here’s a bulletin: Many parents don’t want their children to see bus signs proclaiming that God is a big hoax. That message may be constitutionally protected, but it is not going to engender much goodwill among believers.

Well, old Bill needs to wise up… and quit being a wise ass. People like O’Reilly create resentment and hostility towards theists (and in the world in general). Many parents don’t want many things. The free speech of loud-mouthed pundits may be constitutionally protected, but their virulent ranting is not going to engender much goodwill among non-believers and open minded believers alike.

Of course, Roy Speckhardt knows that, and he is being disingenuous with the “just looking out for atheists” posture. What many non-believers enjoy doing is mocking those who embrace theology. I guess that makes some atheists feel better, because there is no other reason to run down Christmas. It is a happy day for most human beings.

Of course, Bill O’Reilly knows that, and he is being disengenuous with the “just looking out for theists” posture. What many believing pundits enjoy doing is mocking those who embrace intelligent thought. I guess that makes some theists feel better, because there is no other reason to run down people advocating morality that applies equally to all people and not just Fundamentalist Christians. It is a happy day for most human beings… until the Fundies get their panties in a bunch.

The latest Rasmussen poll on the season says that 72% of Americans like saying “Merry Christmas,” while just 22% prefer the greeting “happy holidays.” So the evidence suggests that, despite the ACLU, atheist groups, and a politically correct media, Christmas is actually gaining in relevance and, perhaps, reverence.

I just love how pundits like O’Reilly can take data out of context, misinterpret it, and come to an exaggerated conclusion. I’m sure people have many different reasons for preferring the phrase “Merry Christmas”, but I’m absolutely certain that those 72% of Americans aren’t all Fundamentalist Christians. People say and do all kinds of things simply because that is what they’ve always said and done. People like traditions, but most people don’t worry about what a tradition means or if it means anything at all. So the evidence suggests, depite O’Reilly, Fundamentalist Christians, and a politically biased Fox News, Christmas is a holiday that many believers and non-believers enjoy because it’s fun and not because of anyone’s righteous ideology.

Most folks know a good thing when they see it, and the converse is true as well.

Yes, most folks know a good thing when they see it, and that is why the Fundamentalist Christians of the far religious right represent a minute fraction of a percentage of believers in the world. Most folks just want to be good people without shoving their religious beliefs into the faces of other people. Christmas is about goodwill. Christmas isn’t about attacking non-believers.

That’s why they know these anti-God signs at Christmas time are dumb and unnecessary. Isn’t that right, Virginia?

It’s rather ironic that his last comment is the most dumb and it concludes an entire piece that is unnecessary. Preach to the choir if it makes you happy, but don’t pretend you’re making an intellgent argument. I’d love to see Bill O’Reilly post this to some discussion forums that were atheist, agnostic, non-fundamentalist and inter-faith. This nonsense would be ripped to shreds the moment it was posted.

By the way, if Bill O’Reilly wants to argue that Christians are morally better than atheists, then he probably shouldn’t use a smug and snarky tone of self-righteousness in delivering that claim. I don’t know about the specific groups he mentions, but most atheists and agnostics don’t claim to be morally superior to everyone who believes differently. Yes, there are some atheists who are as bigotedly annoying as O’Reilly. But, no, these atheists don’t represent all or even most non-believers.

Most people who argue for an inherent goodness within human beings (rather than original sin) believe this potential exists in everyone and not just non-believers. That is the difference. The fundamentalist Christian, as O’Reilly demonstrates here, can only make their argument by attacking and dismissing the views of others. If goodness was inherent to every person rather than being something bestowed upon us by a church tradition or dogma, then it would be absolutely true that “no God” would mean “no problem”. Considering that only a small percentage of the world’s population believes in the Fundamentalist Christian God (and considering that even within that small percentage there is much strident disagreement), the apocalypse would already be upon us if goodness was dependent on our believing in such a “God”.

In conclusion, if someone wants to argue for goodwill, then they should try to express goodwill in the argument itself. Otherwise, they come off as a hypocrite… as O’Reilly sounds in this diatribe. Furthermore, if O’Reilly genuinely believes in goodwill, then he might want to stop his inciting violent people with phrases such as “Tiller the baby killer”. Just a suggestion…